Monday, February 07, 2005

Parker Brothers' Politics

I googled "Is Iran next?" and got 66,200 hits, and only two for "Why is Iran next?" That seemed odd to me, because the second question seems almost as important as the first, particularly since the answer to the first is almost certainly "Hell Yes."

There are a number of good answers to the question why, and likely only a few of them have anything to do with whatever the floating casus belli will finally prove to be.

Geopolitically, Iran will be next because the real target is elsewhere, and too strong to strike directly. The real target in the neoconservatives' sites is China, and always has been. The game is encirclement, and it's purpose, the frustration of the Project for the New Chinese Century.

I enjoyed playing Risk as much as any other socially-awkward adolescent, but I was never so malajusted as to play the game by myself and call myself King of the World. Not only did the neocons never outgrow it, but they believe they have the run of the board all to themselves. PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a study in hubris, which presumes Washington to be the only actor of consequence on its Parker Brothers' map of the world. Other nations and prospective power blocks are regarded as little more than stationary pieces to be picked off in turn. Having been a boy with at least one foot in the reality-based community of Risk players, I could have told them that's not how the game works.

Whatever your game, you increase your chances of winning by anticipating your opponent's moves. Regardless of what position of strength you start from, this becomes critically important if you happen to make virtually the entire world your adversary.

The neocon strategists have seen their carefully laid and desperate plan fly apart almost since its implimentation began. Or rather, that's what they would see, if only they could. But since they don't have eyes to see, it's full-speed ahead with another roll of the dice.

Iran is next because of what it means to China. Particularly, that Iran is its primary source of petroleum and natural gas. But China is playing a smart game. While Washington ramps up for another war of choice, China snaps up strategic resources in formerly secure US client states such as Canada and Venezuela, and forges a military partnership with Russia. (I hope the news that Russia and China will be conducting huge and unprecedented joint exercises later this year is causing sleepless nights in the White House, but I'm afraid I hear nothing but somnabulistic "bring it on!") And Russia and China pose much more than a military threat. Consider what the one-two punch these headlines from Saturday could mean to America's soft fiscal underbelly: "Russia ends de facto dollar peg and moves to align rouble with euro" and "China says it has plans to unhook currency from U.S. dollar." The US has bobbed to the top of its debts by the benefit of holding the world's reserve currency. Without it, it sinks.

This is why the neocons have been led by the vain hope that they could get all their moves in before America's rivals could react. It's the only way they could win their new American century. But it's too late. Strategically, the US finds itself in a situation somewhat akin to Imperial Japan's in early 1942: militarily dominant but resource-weak, which has led it to make some exceptionally dangerous choices. The die has been cast.

The situation is so obviously dire for the United States on so many fronts, it's hard to believe that some people who should know better, don't. And that some of them, for whatever purpose, aren't actually welcoming the coming calamity.

The report cited National Guard Captain Kelly Parrson... [who] told Time there were times when he and other non-physicians carried out amputations and other procedures on inmates that should have been performed by surgeons.

"I took off an ankle and a lower leg," he recalls. "There was no one else, and if it was death or amputation, you just had to do it."

This carries an echo of screams from Guantanamo Bay. Former British detainee Jamal al-Harith told The Mirror last Spring that unneccessary amputations were administered by camp doctors. ("All the men who had lost limbs complained they would chop them off high up and not bother to try to save as much as possible.")

"If it was death or amputation, you just had to do it." It's hard to argue with that, except he's not a doctor. Why should we trust his post facto claim that amputation meant life or death? That a Gitmo witness has already testified to prisoners' unneccessary amputations suggests at least the possibility of malicious intent behind the lack of qualified care in Abu Ghraib.

And someone at The New York Times ought to buy one of these:

In case you haven't yet seen this from FAIR, the Times killed a story the week before the election which identified Bush's infamous "debate hump" as "an electronic cueing device" because it could have changed the course of the election. Of course, choosing not to run it might have done the same. Not to mention, Bush's use of a cueing device. I suppose that could have changed the course of the election, too.

Except nothing really could have, could it? Because that wasn't really an election, was it?

If nothing else, the story serves as a good excuse to click right and save here for Paranoid Larry's latest song, "The President's Back."

Some sample lyrics:

It was another election I didn't trust
Too much going on behind the scenes
Fixin' whatever they had to adjust
Determined to win by any means

It's no good second guessing yesterday
But I've got a nagging question about the debate

What was that box on the president's back
I thought it was to help him remember his facts
Then I heard a spokesperson on Face to Face
Say he was receiving messages from Outer Space
And I'm glad they finally told it to us straight
But a couple of follow up questions would have been great

It's what a game of Mousetrap must sound like, from the mouse's perspective.

1407 Comments:

Jeff your comment: "This is why the neocons have been led by the vain hope that they could get all their moves in before America's rivals could react. It's the only way they could win their new American century. But it's too late." is rght on the mark and we owe the Sunni resistance fighters an enormous debt of gratitude for making it so.

I return to a post of a few weeks ago where i drew the distinction between Hitler's romp around europe (in the early years of the war) and what is happening the US now. Tariq Ali has a piece today in CounterPunch where he says of the Iraqi resistance: "The Iraqis were like lightning, compared to the European resistance against the Third Reich. In France, the Vichy regime was popular with a large majority. Not so in Iraq. In occupied Holland the resistance was tiny and very dependent on British support. Not so in Iraq where the resistance receives nil support from its Arab neighbours. In Vietnam, the nationalist resistance to the French, Japanese and American Empires was led by the Communist Party. In Iraq it is completely decentralized. In all the above cases there were collaborators who worked closely with the occupying power. Here [only] Iraq is no different."

The resistance provided the time to achieve all the alliances and agreements pointed out in the post. It also educated many governments as to how to combat the US in the event of an attack --- imagine the devastation that would befall US troops in Iraq from Iranian insurgents should Iran be bombed. It is a new board game to take your metaphor. So much so, that it is only sabre rattling we'll be hearing from the US for the next few years.

It is such a deep sad pity that so many innocent Iraqis must die in order to show the impotence of the current american regime.

I tend to agree with your overall Risk-view assessment of the US. The frightening thing is the more the US loses in the world, the more desperate we will we become. And we can still bomb the shit out of the world.

Somehow, I don't think this will end well for the US or the world. Not unless the Bush administration can be held in check at home and some reasonably rational people are elected in 2008.

But the sad fact is, the CIA analyst Michael Scheurer was probably right when he said "there's a whole lot of killing to be done".

And while the Iraqi resistance can be congratulated to some extent-- they may well be forestalling an attack on Iran-- they may also be making the US more desperate and thus more dangerous.

Jeff's comment: Geopolitically, Iran will be next because the real target is elsewhere, and too strong to strike directly. The real target in the neoconservatives' sites is China, and always has been. The game is encirclement, and it's purpose, the frustration of the Project for the New Chinese Century.

Hey Jeff, my two cents re Iran are that the neocons are the fall guys for the real powers-that-be. Iran won't join the Globalist party, and the diplomatic games are pretty much over.

Iran is being targeted by Israel, vis a vis the American government. Israeli hegemony in the Middle East is now, apparently, American foreign policy. China is basically being ignored by the Bush Reich, but I did like your take that the Chinese oil supply is the reason for American disposition to Iran. But, I think it goes deeper. It seems as though America is being led to destruction by its foreign policy. The Chinese have made pacts with increasingly stable countries(Russia, Canada, Venezuela) so I think they would scoff at the notion of being dependant on one country for their energy. Where does control over as many people as possible come in? As you state, it makes very little sense, strategically, to alienate the rest of the world. Maybe the PTB know something we don't...

Chaos is opportunity. Being on the right side of the capital equation means profiting no matter what the outcome may be. Prescott Bush Jr., W's uncle, has hot china connections. What goes to china? Money and drugs. What comes out? cheap junk for the masses and money for Republican spies like Katrina Leung, Chinese agent and Republican activist who conducted a years long affair with the FBI agents in charge of investigating Al Gore's Buddhist Temple fundraiser. Almost like they were working to elect Bush, huh? The same kinds of skullduggery that brought us the Paris Peace talks failure (kissinger in 68 told the Cong that Nixon would make a better deal-psych!) and Iran Contra (We don't deal with terrorists-we'll eat a bug and snort a line to make a deal with terrorists!). Or invested in Nazi German allied industries and capital. I'm just sayin.

I am reminded of the geopolitical game of the eighties. The hawks played "let's outspend Russia so they go bankrupt." It appears that this decade's game is going to be China saying, "Let the US borrow its way into bankruptcy."

Food for thought, conquering the world is not just for Repubs any more. Check out the Iraqi Liberation Act below and it becomes clear that world conquest is an inherent American presidential tradition now as normal as throwing out the first baseball.

The Iraq Liberation ActOctober 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

So there it is. But don't take my word for it, Google Iraqi Liberation Act and check it out for yourself. Never mind voting the creeps out of office, it is now the accepted agenda. Wait a second, there is somone knocking at my d

Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in yourzip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quitea few. MAKE MONEY NOW

Veryyyyyyyyy nice blog i kinda like it coz it got alot of information that can be useful for me very informative you go guys and one thing more i got a site that i prefer to everybody maybe you will like it to go have a look in your free timeHome based business opportunity seeker

Hi, I was just looking around some blogs and checking different templates for ideas. Good blog with a nice template. I can start my own blog on ebooks thanks to your blog. I will visit weekly by the way. Like your ideas.